₦airaland Forum

Carrying on now:

To recap –

We have so far asserted three of the Essentials to wit –

1. God Exists

2. An excellent means to discerning the Purpose of the creator is the observance of the creation – nature.

2. God’s purpose for creation is Harmony.

In the further discourse I wish to take the subject forward by discussing three subjects in relation to the Deist Worldview.

The subjects are;

1. Reason

2. Humanism

3. Nature

Let us start with the first: REASON.

Have a look at this Extract from the Wiki page on Deism -
_______________________________________________________

Once a proposition is asserted to be a self-evident truth, there is not much more to say about it. Consequently, deist authors attempted to use reason as a critical tool for exposing and rejecting what they saw as nonsense. Here are two typical examples. The first is from John Toland's Christianity Not Mysterious.[11]

I hope to make it appear that the use of reason is not so dangerous in religion as it is commonly represented.

There is nothing that men make a greater noise about than the "mysteries of the Christian religion." The divine gavely tell us "we must adore what we cannot comprehend." Some of them say the "mysteries of the Gospel" are to be understood only in the sense of the "ancient fathers." ,  [Some] contend [that] some mysteries may be, or at least seem to be, contrary to reason, and yet received by faith. [Others contend] that no mystery is contrary to reason, but that all are "above" it.[12]

On the contrary, we hold that reason is the only foundation of all certitude, and that nothing revealed, whether as to its manner or existence, is more exempted from its disquisitions than the ordinary phenomena of nature. Wherefore, we likewise maintain, according to the title of this discourse, that there is nothing in the Gospel contrary to reason, nor above it; and that no Christian doctrine can be properly called a mystery. ,
Now, as we are extremely subject to deception, we may without some infallible rule, often take a questionable proposition for an axiom, old wives' fables for moral certitude, and human impostures for divine revelation,

I take it to be very intelligible from the precedent section that what is evidently repugnant to clear and distinct ideas,[13] or to our common notions,[14] is contrary to reason. ,  No Christian that I know of expressly says reason and the Gospel are contrary to one another. But very many affirm that ,  according to our conceptions of them [i.e. reason and the Gospel] they seem directly to clash. And that though we cannot reconcile them by reason of our corrupt and limited understandings, yet that from the authority of divine revelation we are bound to believe and acquiesce in them; or, as the fathers taught them to speak, to "adore what we cannot comprehend." This famous and admirable doctrine is the undoubted source of all the absurdities that ever were seriously vented among Christians. Without the pretense of it, we should never hear of transubstantiation, and other ridiculous fables of the Church of Rome. Nor should we be ever bantered with the Lutheran impanation,

The first thing I shall insist upon is that if any doctrine of the New Testament be contrary to reason, we have no manner of idea of it. To say, for instance, that a ball is white and black at once is to say just nothing, for these colors are so incompatible in the same subject as to exclude all possibility of a real positive idea or conception. So to say as the papists that children dying before baptism are damned without pain signifies nothing at all.

—John Toland,  Christianity Not Mysterious:
or, a Treatise Shewing That There Is Nothing in the Gospel Contrary to Reason,
Nor above It (1696)
___________________________________________________

No thanks. That is slavery and Gender Apartheid.

I believe in Liberty.

So stuff it, thanks.

So you want my wife to be dressed like this -

^^^ The foregoing would not be useful if the "Shade" referred to is a specific human being.

In the context of this debate the "God" referred to is specific and has certain pre-defined attributes E.g: Omniscience, omnipotence, pre and post existence (Eternal) etc.

This propositional logic would therefore be of no use in terms of this discourse.

Religion has defined God in terms of perceptions historically and culturally passed down.

In my view it is this definition of "God" and particularly the need, if any, to "worship" it, that the atheist validly demands proof of.

Because if God were simply stated to be "The universe" (poor, in my opinion) or "whatever caused things to exist" (such as an impersonal principle of duality spawning outwards in those terms to create positive and negative quantities) - and the requirement to "bow down" and worship was thereby eliminated: then i doubt that any atheist would demand proof for such.

But when you define God as an Old Man sitting in the sky who has a Jewish son called Jesus (who is also God), and who delights in a painful and unjust world or who will send people to hell for not belonging to a particular religion then I stand with the Atheist in stating clearly that no such God exists and that this can only be a contrivance of the imagination or st.upidity of mankind.

In short, Russell's Tea pot is about as likely as such a God; and you darn better produce the proof if you expect people to believe in such tall tales.

Though frankly people have believed worse.

dmxqo:
Does it really matter? All this doctrines and dogmas. Wat matters in religion is morals and not articles of faith.

Viaro: Note the highlighted? The gentleman was speaking with reference to morals: basically that knowledge of "doctrines and dogmas" is irrelevant. Thus he asked - does it really matter?

Your response -

viaro:
It does matter - absolutely.

Indicates that such knowledge (as distinct from the morals only position) matters!

You thus infer that without such knowledge salvation is impossible.

Logic.

_{Do i really really have to spell every inference out for you? Abeg, i dey Dubai and running late for dinner with a real hottie. later.}

MyJoe - thanks for the input.

But i need to say it loud enough: GOD is absolutely transcendental and intangible.

I am astonished that people think God could incarnate as a man.

The energy of the proximity of God will shatter whole universes to pieces.

If you cannot stand the proximity of a small star such as our sun, how do you imagine that you will stand the presence of God?

Now this presence is said to have come to the Earth and interacted face to face with human beings?

Wow.

Just wow.

How we be-little God.

I'll be waiting le professeur.

Mind all - I am referring to the third video in the 3rd post in this thread.

I have not watched the first two.

^^^ Can you please point them out, thanks.

Can you point it out, and let's address it please?

The video in the immediate post above is brilliant. Just utterly brilliant.

I would like to see Mazaje's reaction to it. Or Toneyb. Or thehomer.

When i set out this equation some months back -

0 + 0 = 0

- as proof for the existence of God, nobody would listen! But perhaps this guy explains it better. I urge ALL the atheists on this Forum to take the time to watch this video and recognize for once that the existence of God is a logical and iron cast fact.

viaro:
Did anyone here say so?

Yes SOMEDODY here said so -:

Question was -

dmxqo:
Does it really matter? All this doctrines and dogmas.

YOUR answer:

viaro:
It does matter - absolutely.

So there!

Let me ask you: where is your OOI? What does it do for you? How do you worship it? Of what relevance is your OOI to the Haitians or the Rwandans? What has it ever conveyed to anyone here on Nairaland, the Haitians (if they ever heard of such idiocy) or the Rwandans (if they would not laugh loudly at the idea)? Where is your celestial OOI that has continued to be a source of your mathematical suicide and its own prosaic redundancy? Do you miss very much that no one else but you in your 'shallow sight' have forever cried boohoo for your OOI and yet never made any sense at your very best to impress yourself? We know there are other deists on Nairaland and beyond here - but where have they ever tried to steady this faceless OOI of your deism??

Rabid rants? Me? Just read the foregoing quote of yours.

Why are you so obsessed with OOI? Is it at issue in this thread? Why not simply face the issue and explain exactly why Jesus stated the father to be greater than him? Or why he stated that he is NOT omniscient? Deal with these and leave my "faceless illiterate desim" to one side jaare. . .because that is not the subject of this thread, no?

What does this conversation tell you, son:

Deep Sight  - "Jesus says that the father is greater than him. Viaro says they are Equal."

Viaro:  - (In response)  - "You deep sight, are illiterate, a hypocrite, your faceless illiterate OOI, shallow sighted. . .$%&£!??!$%&!!!! . . .

Rabid rant?

^^^ Gosh.

Simple childlike saints (such as non-educated but honest people in Haiti or Rwanda for example) are expected by God to have an exact understanding of celestial relationships such as the Trinity otherwise they will go to hell? ? ? ? ?

What really is required for salvation? ? ? ?

Gosh!

Ya gotta luuuuuuuuuv these Christians.

dmxqo:
Does it really matter? All this doctrines and dogmas. Wat matters in religion is morals and not articles of faith. So, wateva way the deity exists it shouldnt be a matter of human enquiry.

Bingo! Well said!!!

Wetin consine crayfish with mango tree? ? ?

Wetin consine man pikin with long tori say one Jewish guy na im be Chineke, abi Olodumare?

InesQor:
Deep Sight, if you can take some few hours to ponder on what I said earlier, maybe you will see some light:

1. THAT which God is, Logos is. John 1:1 in an altogether clear translation from the Greek, ignoring case-sensitivity and other possible translation faults. Since Christ is Logos, then Christ is God.

---

Deep Sight, this was one of your first questions to me on the thread I opened when I registered on NL. I told you that the correct interpretation is "THAT which God was, the Logos also was". So it's left to you to counter the translation, or else decide what God was/is. And that's what the Logos (Christ) was/is!

---

2. God poured himself out into a tangible form, and it is thus very clear that even though the tangible form can be physically observed, it does NOTHING to reduce his ESSENCE. God would not have reduced, and Christ would be the EXACT SAME GOD.

---

---

In the illustration above, the flask will remain full of the PERFECT oil, but the smaller pot will be as well full of the PERFECT OIL (the flask is greater than the pot), it has the same 100% ESSENCE with the exact same physical characteristics! So, because the vessel is smaller, can I conclude that it is not the same content?

Jesus, as God poured out into human form, had the exact same essence as the Father (the unending source from which he was poured out or annexed, not created) even though he had a tangible physical body. It will be naive of anyone to look at the smaller pot, which is accessible to everyone, and conclude that it is just like any other pot of oil, when one only needs to look at "Elijah's hands" and see the flask from which it was poured, yet non-diminished!

Such views, without proof, would be Stubborn and Naive!!!

Your analogy fails simply because Jesus HIMSELF made it clear that he and the Father DO NOT have the same core nature:

GOD IS AN OMNISCIENT BEING.

JESUS PLAINLY STATED THAT HE IS NOT OMNISCIENT.

SO WHAT ARE YOU ON ABOUT?

MUST YOU FORCE THAT POOR LATE JEWSIH RABBI TO BECOME GOD? ? ?

EVEN AGAINST HIS EXPRESS WORDS? ? ?

viaro:
^^ DeepSight,

If it takes long stories to explain anything and therefore it becomes a lie, have you not done that same thing so many times? Did TrueSeeker not try to hoodwink you with that same thing by telling long, unfounded stories denying the Deity of Christ?

Why is it that you must demonstrate this idiocy of your hypocrisy all over Nairaland? Take heart, son - viaro is not a deist, and I know that just because I happen to have touched you where it really hurt, that is why you would ever seek to react to anything viaro says. The thing is that, in doing so you demonstrate a further damage to your CV by spouting lies and all sorts of duplicities. Yes, people whose OOI has categorically failed them and crashed with such redundancy often tend to go about repeating their idiocy on the forum.

No worries - I only said that your deism will be exposed again. . . that should not have scared you into reacting with such hypocrisy. But it's your world, if this is all you can show for your legal profession, I'm very, very sorry indeed that you have caused your company a huge loss! I had some hope you would be reasonable, but now the 'Deep Sight' I knew only turns out to be so shallow.

So, go ahead - repeat your idiocy and confirm to readers that you have nothing better to show for your career. When the time does come, no prayers sent to OOI will turn things around to prevent my sending your deism into oblivion. Enjoy.

Steady now: focus on the thread; the discerning reader can easily notice WHO is duplicituous and frustrated simply by looking at WHICH POSTER IS RESORTING TO INSULTS AND REFERENCES TO OTHER THREADS WHICH ARE NOT AT ISSUE HERE.

I make no insults: amnd i stick to the topic in what i am saying here: so running about insulting my professional career and my company is your kettle of fish!

I repeat:

We will highlight the needful to assist you yet again -

Jesus: "The Father is greater than I" - Jn 14:28

Viaro: "NO! They are equal!"

Who is lying here? Jesus or Viaro? Decide for yourself!

[size=16pt]They CANNOT both be speaking the truth![/size]

Decide who's the liar.

Jesus or Viaro?

Who is desperate to transform a Jewish man into almighty God? Who will despite this attack others for claiming deity?

Bizzarre, aint it?

Do you need to deprecate me and insult my professional life just because i point out ONE contradiction between you and Jesus that you cannot escape?

^^^ Long story. It always takes long stories to explain away glaring statements made by your own lord.

Maybe repetition will help -

So here we go again -

We will highlight the needful to assist you yet again -

Jesus: "The Father is greater than I" - Jn 14:28

Viaro: "NO! They are equal!"

Who is lying here? Jesus or Viaro? Decide for yourself!

[size=16pt]They CANNOT both be speaking the truth![/size]

The same Jesus stated - 1. That he is not omniscient and 2. He is not omnipotent.

Decide who's the liar.

Jesus or Viaro?

Who is desperate to transform a Jewish man into almighty God? Who will despite this attack others for claiming deity?

Bizzarre, aint it?

^^^ Easy now - the process is often painful -

Glaring inconsistensies are hurtful when pointed out.

We will take it step by step to help your struggling mind.

Repetition just might help at the end of the day. . .

So here we go again -

We will highlight the needful to assist you yet again -

Jesus: "The Father is greater than I" - Jn 14:28

Viaro: "NO! They are equal!"

Who is lying here? Jesus or Viaro? Decide for yourself!

[size=16pt]They[b] CANNOT [/b] both be speaking the truth![/size]

Maybe repetition will help. It is a teaching method used in Nursery school you know? It helps struggling minds grasp basic principles:

So here we go again -

We will highlight the needful to assist you yet again -

Jesus: "The Father is greater than I" - Jn 14:28

Viaro: "NO! They are equal!"

Who is lying here? Jesus or Viaro? Decide for yourself!

[size=16pt]They CANNOT both be speaking the truth![/size]

I cannot get over this. And insults will not becloud the truth. No escape:

Jesus: "The Father is greater than I" - Jn 14:28

Viaro: "NO! They are equal!"

Who is lying here? Jesus or Viaro? Decide for yourself!

[size=16pt]They CANNOT both be speaking the truth![/size]

I cannot get over this.

Jesus: "The Father is greater than I" - Jn 14:28

Viaro: "NO! They are equal!"

Who is lying here? Jesus or Viaro? Decide for yourself!

They CANNOT both be speaking the truth!

Alethia:

God's will is for all men to be saved, yes?

If so, why are some saved and some damned?

Clearly because some rejected God's will for their lives and other's co-operated with God's will for their lives, no?

Can you tell me if God's will for the Life of Hitler, Mobutu or Idi-Amin was realized?

There's nothing difficult in what Joagbaje is trying to pass across: namely that each person must key-into or sync with God's will, for such to be made manifest in their lives.

The very definition of "sin" proves this point - sin is a missing of the mark: basically a deviation from God's will.

Viaro –

Let us look at a few of your comebacks to elucidate the point.

viaro:
I did not contradict that in any way - rather I have posted John 5:23 so many times and none of your ilks have ever addressed that issue for ONCE! If Jesus was not God/Deity, He would not have asserted that He is to be worshipped in exactly the same way as the Father is to be worshipped.

So can you explain exactly why he stated that the Father is greater than he is?

Why do you contradict him – and insist that they are equal?

It is either –

1. He was lying OR

2. YOU are lying.

Both cannot be true.

So which is it?

That was not a statement of worship - it was His prophecied declaration on the Cross in His vicarious death in His Humanity - see Heb. 2:9. It is in His Humanity and not Hid Deity that He could taste death for every man - and it is in His Humanity that He made that pornouncement on the Cross.

This statement was not made on the cross at all!

“My father and your father, my God and your God. . .” he utters these words whilst teaching the disciples!

Why does he claim to have a God, if he is God.

Does it make any sense to you for God to pray to a being having greater powers that he? Is God not said to be the “Supreme being?” If Jesus subordinated himself and his will to another being (as he repeatedly did when praying to the Father) then he CANNOT be said to be the “Supreme” being.

Can the terrible internal inconsistency here really miss you?

What does “Supremacy” mean to you Viaro? Does a supreme being go about declaring that another is “greater” than him – or pleading with another saying  - “nevertheless not as I wilt but as thou wilt? ? ?”

John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.

That in no way negates the fact that He is God (John 1:1)

You are aware of what the proper Greek interpretation of this verse is.

I urge you to dig deep, pray and ask God to make the truth known to us all in this matter.

^^^ When you find yourself having to explain away a zillion clear statements of your Christ which apparently negate what you teach about him; perhaps you should stop to consider sincerely, carefully and truthfully whether it has not come to it that you are actually mis-representing the poor guy.

For no matter how you may twist and turn, you cannot escape that GOD is said to be Omniscient and Omnipotent: Two qualities that Christ EXPRESSLY and AFFIRMATIVELY DENIED having.

With Omniscience - he stated clearly that there are some things he knew not - Thus he affirms that he is NOT omniscient.

With Omnipotence - he pleaded with GOD for a certain outcome on a certain matter, closing his prayer acknowledging that things could not be done according to his own will, but[b] only according to the will of God[/b] - thereby showing that he was NOT omnipotent: and also that his will could be distinguished from God's will.

These signal points are inescapable; utterly ineluctable and serve on their very own to affirm that which every sincere person should know in his heart: namely that the man Jesus of Nazareth IS NOT ALMIGHTY GOD.

So Viaro; i sincerely invite you to stop a moment in the mad rush of life and contemplate in sincerity and honesty why all these major signals would have been set forth by Jesus if indeed he were God. Indeed it should not be pilot for you to seek to "win" an argument on such serious matters - it would rather be in your spiritual interest to stop and see if it really and truly makes sense to insist that a mere mortal who stated very clearly and in no ambiguous terms that he is NOT omniscient and NOT Omnipotent - could actually be called Almighty GOD.

It neither makes logical sense; nor can it be sensed in any terms as even remotely true.

Stay blessed.

viaro:
My attitude to the worldviews that I do not subscribe to is not to sit all day argue what is 'right' or 'wrong' in them as if it is my prerogative to define their religion for them.

FALSE. What then have you been doing describing Deism in every term? You also call it a "theif" of worldviews, no?

That is what you have been doing, which is why as a Christian I would stand up to you anytime and anyday.

The pot calling the kettle black then.

Even when I cannot understand the philosophical underpinnings of a worldview, it is not my style to betake myself endlessly to argue what they should believe.

FALSE AGAIN: You have done this extensively on Deism. Also on other sects of Christianity that do not hold your views.

For example, I have used the case of Hinduism's sacrosanctity for bovines {'cows are God'} - that is not what I believe; and it is not up to me to disparage the Hindu on that.

The ONLY reason you refrained from attacking the Hindu supposition is because i set it to you as evidence that YOU are living in a glass house and as such cannot throw stones: YOU realize that your worship of a Jew as GOD is just as ridiculous as the Hindu supposition of sacred cows.

That's why you MUST keep mum on the hindus.

Could it be possible that I fail to understand what such a text says and could be wrong? It is possible. Then why should I then enslave myself to disparaging the Hindu for what I do not understand at all?

Could it be possible that u fail to understand what Diesm says and could be wrong? It is possible. Then why should u then enslave urself to disparaging the Deist for what u do not understand at all?

^^^ Bollocks. Codswollop. Nonsense.

IF JESUS WERE GOD -

1. He would not categorically state the Father to be greater than him - which you have the ridiculous effrontery to contradict by insisting that he is equal with the Father.

2. He would not state that he worships God - in his words "my God and your God"

3. He would not state clearly that as the son, there are things which remain unknown to him - God is omniscient, no?

4. He would not be "begotten"

5. He would not make the statement in Gethsemane evincing a possible dichotomy of wills within the Godhead ("Nevertheless not as i will but as THOU wilt" - This statement also shows that he is NOT omnipotent as the Father is said to be.

6. The book of Revelation would not evince his CLEAR subjugation to that Father

7. He would not speak of being forsaken by the Father: being God he would have known the WHOLE script and what it meant

8. He would not be capable of being reduced to a finite element such as a human being as God is absolutely intangible and Transcendental; an infinite element cannot be borne within a finite vessel.

^^^ Odd Viaro.

Is it wrong for you perhaps to argue that Islam actually teaches submission to the will of Allah - against someone who asserts that it does not?

In that case you are merely seeking to tell that person what you are positively aware is the teaching of Islam.

I have been a Christian in the past and as such i am familiar with Christian doctrines: there cannot be anything wrong in my setting a Christian right on what I know is contained within his scripture.

Do i have to laboriously explain everything to you? ? ?

Inesqor -

I do not agree with Joagbaje because i do NOT believe in the whole Christian delusion of Christ, his deity, his sacrifice as redemption, etc.


I simply point out that going by scripture Joagbaje has it right in his understanding of the Christian concept of redemption and union with Christ.

FOR ME: such concepts are meaningless and rooted in pagan ideas and ridiculous fantasy - not to mention a failure to grasp the laws of God which i do not believe permit ANY person to make atonement for the sins of ANY OTHER person. Whatever a man sows, he must unconditionally reap.

Question from Deep Sight -

Let me ask them this; If Jesus came to the earth, suffered death, rose again, and supposedly returned to heaven: what had he "lost?" - What had he "sacrificed?" - "What had he "laid down?" - If this is all there is to it, then he had laid down NOTHING because all intangible beings come to the world and pass away onto the spiritual ANYWAY.

Answer from Viaro -

It's not a problem actually. The first thing you ought to be concerned with is how your OOI has been fairing right after it was exposed for the sham it has always been. What has your OOI done for you? Nothing. What has your OOI done for anybody? Zilch. How has your OOI improved your reasoning faculty? Nix. So, rather than be too concerned for the Christian worldview, you ought to be trying to rescue your OOI from its dying sleep before he moans into the blackhole where it is already headed.

Men, talk about dodging the issue.

Quote from Viaro -

(3)   There's a world of difference between "becoming" and "remaining" ~

            (a)   to "become" something means you were not that thing previously

And equally being "begotten" means. . .? ? ?

is the same thing that John 1:1 says in the GN Bible - "the Word was God".

Why do you keep citing this? You know what the greek inferred.

but it's something about my Italian background that is hard to drop.

Do you speak Italian?

Viaro my brother! Quick question - why do you love referring to yourself in the third person?

Are you a Trinity?

thehomer your arguments surprise me.

the very existence of information excludes the the possibility of a pre-existent state of absolute void - except you are willing to further entertain teh absurdity that even the smallest block of information may emerge from non-information. Thus that pre-existence can only be conceived in terms of a permanent and non-contingent element which itself is, contains and spawns the infinite series of all conceivable information.